1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to personal safety, specifically to a method of capturing an event and leaving a high technology trail of evidence that may be easily located and collected.
2. Background of the Invention
A growing problem in our society today is stranger abduction. Parents, communities, abducted children's foundations and law enforcement agencies have mounted a crusade to stop these events and bring the already abducted home.
Inventors have created several types of locator devices to assist in the recovery of objects and individuals. Most human oriented locator devices aim to track a person's location. The components required for a tracking approach present several downfalls. In Pat. D453,483 Missing Person Locator Set to Choe, 2002 Feb. 12, and Patent Application 20030034887 Article Locator System by Crabtree, 2003 Feb. 20, and Patent Application 20020175820 Tracking Device by Oja, 2002 Mar. 13, a RF infrastructure is required to monitor a worn RF device that advises when a worn device goes out of range. This approach is inferior because the user's travel is limited to the coverage area of the RF technology in use and is therefore not suitable in an abduction scenario where the abducted may be taken far away.
Other patents such as U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,936,530 Child Protection Device to Meinhold 1999 Aug. 10, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,694,284 Abduction-Preventing Collar to Leveille, 1987 Sep. 15, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,021,794 Personal Emergency Locator System to Lawrence, 1991 Jun. 4, carry the same infrastructure downfall. In addition, these patents require devices such as a watch, or a collar, or a RF device in the clothing to remain on the wearer. Although cut-resistant, these devices can be removed by the assailant by either cutting them off or by removing the victims clothing. This may present a condition where injury could be caused by the abductor's removal of these devices.
Also, it is inherent that these devices require much battery power for operation of signals that are constantly communicating with the infrastructure. Battery management is required to maintain the device in usable form. Batteries tend to run down at the most inopportune times rendering these devices not feasible as emergency devices in an “abduction” scenario. The product may not be used if battery management is required because of inconvenience of keeping batteries charged. If the product is used, batteries may not be fully charged and ready in an emergency situation. A device may also mistakenly be left on or have a used battery rendering the emergency device unreliable. In addition, the abducted will not be allowed to perform battery maintenance operations such as re-charging the device.
Also, current approaches are too costly to provide safety for the general public. In the case of the RF devices, a large RF infrastructure becomes price prohibitive. Even as cell phone usage expands, although not perfect for emergencies (drained batteries, limited coverage, assailant removal), cell phones and service plans are price prohibitive as a general public safety device. Likewise in the case of GPS (Global Positioning Systems) as in U.S. Pat. No. 6,175,329 Automatic Emergency and Position Indicator to Vicci, 2001 Jan. 16, although this art is possibly a more reliable form of emergency message transmission compared to cell phones, we do not see them in everyday use since the user devices themselves and associated services are also price prohibitive for mass public safety.
Commercially available electronic personal locator devices or personal beacons have a number of downfalls. They are large and heavy and not easily carried on a backpacking trip much less concealed and used for safety on a day-to-day basis. Since these transmit on the emergency channel, they are not feasible for general population day-to-day use since in general usage they would be activated in many situations for both real and false alarms. Emergency and rescue services could most likely not keep up with the activation of these units. These are also very expensive costing in the hundreds of dollars. Therefore because of their size, weight, transmission channel, and expense, these devices are neither affordable nor practical for day-to-day usage.
Similarly, in US patent application 20030162508 Miniature Electronic Personal Locator Beacon by Macias, 2003 Aug. 28, a beacon is used to signal a person overboard a ship on the VHF 1215 MHz distress channel. This art differs in many ways from my personal safety system. Firstly, a manual button, or a water-sensor upon a user falling overboard a ship into the water, actuates the beacon. This design is obviously not for use in abduction type emergency situations since the victim would need to either fall into water for automatic activation or have to rely on pressing a button that could be difficult to find and press in an emergency situation. Secondly, with this device also, we would need to rely on the abductor not removing the unit from the victim. Thirdly, the device is designed with a micro controller and VHF beacon making it costly for mass public safety use. Fourthly, battery management would be required. Fifthly, emergency signaling of the distress channel would not be feasible as an everyday safety device for the general public as the emergency channel could not reply to all needs.
In these prior art examples the task was to track, or the device had to remain charged and on the victim, or the device, service, or infrastructure was price prohibitive. All the personal locator systems heretofore known suffer from a number of disadvantages:                (a) An RF device that is designed to remain on the person, if taken off, is rendered useless        (b) With RF device usage, once a person is removed from the general vicinity or a defined RF coverage area the device is rendered useless        (c) Prior art neglects to collect any evidence so if these devices are eventually located and retrieved they tell little of what happened and at that point are not helpful for rescue        (d) Battery power is consumed readily with units that are continually on and communicating with an RF infrastructure        (e) Batteries can wear down providing an emergency unit not emergency capable. Also in previous designs the unit must continue to be charged after abduction for recovery        (f) RF infrastructure required by some devices render them price prohibitive and impractical for large coverage areas. GPS tracking systems can also be price prohibitive for the mass market        (g) High price coupled with the above disadvantages render most devices impractical and imperfect in a cost/risk/justification model        (h) Prior art devices are not a deterrent as long as the perpetrator can take the device off of the victim        (i) As with cell phones, children can not be tasked to have a device, out, charged, and at hand, when they need help        (j) In the case of emergency locator systems operating on the distress channel, this channel is more appropriate at sea than for the safety of the general mass public for day-to-day usage        (k) In one case sited, actuation is not automatic unless upon falling into water        (l) In the case of current emergency locator systems, they are large and heavy and expensive        